This report provides estimates for the size, design, and cost of a gantry crane to lower detector components for the proposed Future Circular Collider (FCC) project. The detectors could weigh up to 6,000 tonnes and need to be lowered 200-400 meters underground. Information is given on the dimensions and design of the existing CMS gantry crane, which lowered a 2,000 tonne detector. Preliminary calculations are shown for the design of the main beam for the FCC gantry crane, assuming dimensions similar to CMS. The calculations check that the proposed steel I-beam cross section meets bending, buckling, and shear requirements to support a 6,000 tonne load at the ultimate and service

1. EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH
ORGANISATION EUROPÉENNE POUR LA RECHERCHE NUCLÉAIRE
CERN - SMB Department
EDMS Nr: 1715491 v.1
Group reference: SMB-SE-FAS August, 2016
FUTURE CIRCULAR COLLIDER (FCC)
CIVIL ENGINEERING
FCC GANTRY FOR DETECTOR LOWERING STUDY
DIMENSION ESTIMATES, POTENTIAL DESIGNS AND CONTRACTORS
J. Collins
Approved by:
John Osborne SMB/SE/FAS
Hubert Gerwig EP/CMX/EI
Abstract
This report provides first estimates as to the size and cost of a gantry crane designed to lower a
6 000 tonne detector component approximately 200 - 400m underground. It also individualizes
possible contractors to carry out its design.
SMB

2. 2
1 INTRODUCTION
This work is done as part of the feasibility study of the FCC. As for the LHC, in-situ construction of the
detectors (such as ATLAS) can be inconvenient as would have to be done 200 to 400m below ground
and could delay the project up to five years. As an alternative, the detector is assembled above ground
and then lowered into position. This requires a Gantry crane of significant dimensions and capacity
(thousands of tonnes). Such a crane does not exist as a standard on the market and must be designed
especially for the task.
2 INFORMATION COLLECTED ON CMS GANTRY CRANE (2000 TONNES)
2.1 General description
After the shaft was dug and constructed, a building was erected in which to assemble CMS to shelter
and protect it and to mitigate noise pollution in the surrounding area. Four holes in the ceiling would
allow the cables of the gantry crane, constructed around the outside of the building, to attach to the
detector. Due to the presence of the building a fixed gantry cranes was designed to lower CMS and
could only lift and lower loads. To displace the detector horizontally it was placed on a 1500 tonne
concrete mobile platform that could slide horizontally by use of air pads and hydraulics jacks. (Osborne,
2006)
Figure 1: uncovered shaft and plug (Osborne, 2006)
Figure 2: Air pad (Osborne, 2006)

3. 3
The platform, with the detector on it, was slid forward so as to act as a “plug” to the shaft down
which the detector was to go down. Once the detector, weighing 2000 tonnes, was in position it was
lifted off the plate by means of the gantry crane and the plug was returned to its original position,
revealing the shaft below. The detector could then be lowered. (Osborne, 2006)
Figure 3: detector and plug slide forward (Osborne, 2006)
Figure 4: Detector lowered into shaft (Osborne, 2006)

4. 4
2.2 Raw data
2.2.1 Gantry dimensions
Figure 5: Front view (VSL, 2006)

5. 5
Figure 6: Side view (VSL, 2006)

6. 6
Figure 7: design with load distribution (VSL, 2006)
2.2.2 BeamCross section
The main beam has a total height of 3300mm, a web 1150 mm long and 50mm thick and a flange
2750mm long and 25mm thick. Stiffeners were used,labelled “Raidisseur” in Figure 8, with a width of
400 mm.
Figure 8: "I" beam cross section specification

7. 7
2.2.3 Lifting equipment
Figure 9: strand-jacker model used (weight specified) (VSL, 2006)

8. 8
Figure 10: Strand coiler model used (weight specified) (VSL, 2006)

9. 9
Figure 11: Hydraulic pump 1 used (weight specified) (VSL, 2006)

10. 10
Figure 12: Hydraulics pump 2 used (weight specified) (VSL, 2006)

11. 11
3 INFORMATION REGARDING DETECTORS TO BE LOWERED (FCC)
The detectors for the FCC are still in the process of being designed at the time this of this report and the
data below dates from the 3rd
of August 2016 (Mentink and ten Kate, 2016).
3.1 Unshielded Solenoid and Forward Solenoid
Table 1: Unshielded Solenoid and Forward Solenoid information (Mentink and ten Kate, 2016)
3.2 4T/10m Twin Solenoid and 4Tm Forward Dipole
Table 2: 4T/10m Twin Solenoid and 4Tm Forward Dipole information (Mentink and ten Kate, 2016)
3.3 4T/4-6m Thin and Transparent Solenoid
Table 3: 4T/4-6m Thin and Transparent Solenoid information (Mentink and ten Kate, 2016)

12. 12
4 MAIN BEAM ESTIMATES CALCULATIONS (DESIGN 1)
4.1 Assumptions
The general design remains the same as that of the CMS gantry crane: two large I beams supported by
four columns each made of four I beams connected by bracing. Four strand-jackers apply four point
loads, two on each beam.
As mentioned in (Desirelli and Ferreira, 2006) the two ‘HEA” profiles between the two large “I”
section of the main beam were neglected. Instead, the two beam were considered separately and were
assumed to carry half the load each due to the geometry of the structure and are thus of the same cross
section.
The loads are assumedto be distributed asshown in Figures 13-14 and the shearforce andbending
moment follow the distributions shown.
Figure 13: Shear Force and Bending Moment distribution for applied loads
Figure 14: Shear Force and Bending Moment distribution caused fromthe beam self-weight
4.1.1 Dimensions and equipment
The detector was assumed to have a diameter of 20 metres and to weigh 6000 tonnes. Based on the
dimensions of the CMS gantry crane shown in Figures 5-7 (whose detector had a diameter of 15m) the
following dimensions were roughly estimated:
Table 4: Gantry crane dimensions estimated for calculations
Column height 25m
Beam span 30m
Distance between two POI 20m

13. 13
The main beam is to have two “I” beam profiles connected by an “HEA” profile. Four DL-S1672
type strand jacks weighing 12900 kg eachwhen fully equipped are used and four Hydraulic power packs
estimated to weigh 600kg each. Steel type S355 is assumed to be used.
4.2 Loads
4.2.1 Permanent Loads
Total permanent UDL on beam = self-weight of beam
= weight/span
= 983.8/30
= 32.793 kN/m
Total permanent action on beam = 2 Hydraulic power packs + 2 lifting units (DL-S1672)
= 258 + 12
= 270 kN
4.2.2 Variable Actions
The variable UDL on the secondary beam = 30 000 kN
4.2.3 Combination of actions at Ultimate Limit State
ULS: Permanent + Variable*
At midspan:
M max = 1.35 * (675 +3690) + (1.50 * 75000) = 118392 kN
S = 0
At support:
M = 0
Smax = 1.35*(135+492) + (1.5*15000) = 23346
4.2.4 Design Values of Bending Moment and Shear Force
Smax = 23346 kN
Mmax = 118392 kNm
4.3 Trial Section
Steel type S355 will be used. The nominal thickness (t) of the flange and web are between 40
and 80 mm.
The yield strength is: fy = 335 N/mm2

14. 14
4.3.1 Section Properties
Depth of cross-section h = 4100 mm
Width of cross-section b = 1600 mm
Depth between fillets d = 3390 mm
Web thickness tw = 45 mm
Flange thickness tf = 75 mm
Radius of root fillet r = 30 mm
Cross-sectional area A = 4177.5 cm2
Second moment of area (y-y) Iy = 120000000 cm4
Second moment of area (z-z) Iz = 5123000 cm4
Radius of gyration, (z-z) iz = 35 cm
Warping constant Iw = 4932.9 dm6
Torsion constant It = 57225.94 cm4
Elastic section modulus (y-y) Wel,y = 586957.1 cm3
Plastic section modulus (y-y) Wpl,y = 612286.1 cm3
Modulus of Elasticity E = 210000 N/mm2
4.4 Classification of cross-section
ɛ = √
235
𝑓𝑦
= √
235
335
= 0.8376
Outstand flange: flange under uniform compression
c =
(𝑏− 𝑡 𝑤−2𝑟)
2
=
(1600 − 45 −(2∗30))
2
= 747.5 mm
𝑐
𝑡 𝑓
=
74.8
75
= 9.967
The limiting value for Class 1 is
𝑐
𝑡 𝑓
≤ 9ɛ = 9*0.8376 = 7.538
9.967 > 7.538
Therefore, the flange outstand in compression is not Class 1.
The limiting value for Class 2 is
𝑐
𝑡 𝑓
≤ 10ɛ = 10*0.8376 = 8.3755
9.967 > 8.3755
Therefore, the flange outstand in compression is not Class 2
The limiting value for Class 3 is
𝑐
𝑡 𝑓
≤ 14ɛ = 14*0.8376 = 11.726
9.967 <11.726
Therefore, the flange outstand in compression is Class 3.

15. 15
4.5 Bending Resistance of the cross-section
For a class 3 section the design resistance of the cross-section for bending about the major
axis (y-y) is:
Mc,Rd = Mel,Rd =
𝑊 𝑒𝑙 ,𝑅𝑑 𝑓𝑦
𝛾 𝑀𝑂
=
586957 ∗103
335
1
* 10-6 = 196631 kNm
𝑀 𝐸𝑑
𝑀 𝑐,𝑅𝑑
=
118392
196631
= 0.6021 < 1.00 OK
4.6 Lateral torsional buckling resistance
4.6.1 Non-dimensional slendernessof an unrestrained beam
𝜆̅ 𝐿𝑇=
1
√ 𝐶1
* 0.9 𝜆̅ 𝑧√ 𝛽 𝑤
Where:
1
√ 𝐶1
= 0.94
λz =
𝐿
𝑖 𝑧
=
30000
35∗10
= 85.6677
λ1 = π√
𝐸
𝑓𝑦
= π√
210000
335
= 78.617
𝜆̅ 𝑧 =
𝐿
𝑖 𝑧 𝜆1
=
30000
35∗78.617∗10
= 1.0897
√ 𝛽 𝑤 = √
𝑊𝑦
𝑊 𝑝𝑙,𝑦
= 1.0
Therefore:
𝜆̅ 𝐿𝑇=
1
√ 𝐶1
* 0.9 𝜆̅ 𝑧√ 𝛽 𝑤 = 0.94 * 0.9 * 1.0897 * 1 = 0.9219
4.6.2 Reduction factor for lateral torsional buckling
For I or H or equivalently rolled section
χLT =
1
𝜑 𝐿𝑇 +√ 𝜑 𝐿𝑇
2
− 𝛽𝜆̅ 𝐿𝑇
2
but χLT ≤ 1.00 and χLT ≤
1
𝜆̅ 𝐿𝑇
2
Where:
𝜑𝐿𝑇 = 0.5 (1+ 𝛼 𝐿𝑇 (𝜆̅ 𝐿𝑇 − 𝜆̅ 𝐿𝑇,𝑂) + 𝛽𝜆̅ 𝐿𝑇
2
)
𝜆̅ 𝐿𝑇,𝑂 = 0.4

16. 16
𝛽 = 0.75
ℎ
𝑏
=
4100
1600
= 2.5625, where 2.0 < 2.5625 ≤ 3.1, we use buckling curve c for a rolled section, with
an imperfection factor αLT = 0.49
Therefore:
𝜑𝐿𝑇 = 0.5 (1+ 0.49 ∗ (0.9219 − 0.4) + 0.75 ∗ 0.92192
) = 0.9466
And:
χLT =
1
0.9466 +√0.94662 − 0.75∗0.92192 = 0.6873
Check:
χLT = 0.6873< 1.0
χLT = 0.6873<
1
𝜆̅ 𝐿𝑇
2 =
1
0.92192 = 1.1767
The reduction factor χLT = 0.6873
4.6.3 Modification of χLT for moment distribution
kc =
1
√ 𝐶1
= 0.94
f = 1-0.5(1 - kc ) (1-2(𝜆̅ 𝐿𝑇 -0.8)2) but ≤ 1.0
= 1-0.5(1 – 0.94) (1-2(0.9219-0.8)2)
= 0.9709
Modified reduction factor
χLT,mod =
χLT
𝑓
=
0.6873
0.9709
= 0.7079
4.6.4 Design buckling resistance moment of the unrestrained beam
For class 3: Mb,Rd = 𝜒 𝐿𝑇
𝑊 𝐸𝑙 ,𝑦 𝑓𝑦
𝛾 𝑀1
= 0.7079 ∗
586957∗103
∗335∗10−6
1
=126534 kNm
𝑀 𝐸𝑑
𝑀 𝑏,𝑅𝑑
=
118392
126534
= 0.9356 < 1.0 OK
4.6.5 Shear resistance
Basic design requirement:
𝑉 𝐸𝑑
𝑉𝑐,𝑅𝑑
≤ 1.0
Vc,Rd = Vpl,Rd =
𝐴 𝑣
𝑓 𝑦
√3
𝛾 𝑀𝑂
For a rolled I-section with shear parallel to the web the shear area is:
Av = A – 2btf + (tw + 2r)tf but no less than ηhwtw
Av = (4177.5*102) – (2*1600*75) + (45 + (2*30))*75)
= 185625 mm2

17. 17
η = 1.0 (conservative)
ηhwtw = 1*(4100-2*75)*45 = 177750 mm2
185625 mm2 > 177750 mm2
Therefore, Av = 185625 mm2
The design shear resistance is therefore:
Vc,Rd = Vpl,Rd =
185625 ∗
335
√3
1
*10-3 = 35902 kN
𝑉 𝐸𝑑
𝑉𝑐,𝑅𝑑
=
23346 .32
35902
= 0.6503 < 1.0
Therefore, the shear resistance of the section is adequate.
4.7 Serviceability Limit State
Vertical deflections should normally be calculated under the characteristic load combination
due to variable loads, not including permanent loads.
The load combination at the Serviceability Limit State is:
∑Gk + Qk,1 + ∑ψO,iQk,i
Modified by NA 2.23 to EN 1993-1-1 (Permanent loads not included).
Only one variable action is present, therefore ∑ψO,iQk,I =0
4.7.1 Vertical deflection of beam
At mid-span, the vertical deflection is:
w =
𝐿3 𝑄 𝑘
2
6𝐸𝐼 𝑦
∗ (
3𝑎
4𝐿
− (
𝑎
𝐿
)3
)
Qk = 30000 kN
w =
300003
∗
30000
2
∗103
6∗210000 ∗1.2∗108 ∗104 ∗ (
3∗5000
4∗30000
− (
5000
30000
)3
) = 32.155mm
Vertical deflection limit for this example is
𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑛
360
=
30000
360
= 83.33 𝑚𝑚
32.155 mm < 83.33 mm
Therefore, the vertical deflection of the section is satisfactory.

18. 18
5 COLUMN ESTIMATES CALCULATIONS (DESIGN 1)
5.1 Assumptions
Each set of opposite columns carries half the load (therefore all the load from one of the two beams).
Due to the geometry of the cranes each of these two columns will support half the load from one beam
(a quarter of the total load).
The calculations outlined below follow the method used in the lifting gantry design report for
CMS.
5.1.1 Dimensions and equipment
Table 5: Crane dimensions estimated for calculations
Column height 25m
Beam span 30m
Distance between two POI 20m
Lo 2.2m
Lm 2.0m
Lk 50m
The four beams that constitute the column are assumed to be I beams of the same cross section,
Steel type S270 is assumed to be used.
5.2 Loads
5.2.1 Dead Loads
Tower self-weight: 378.56 kN
Head piece on towers: 50 kN
Main Beam: 250 kN
Spreader beams: 250 kN
5.2.2 Live loads
Applied load: 30000 kN

19. 19
5.3 Effects of unfactored loads
5.3.1 Dead Loads

20. 20
5.3.2 Live Loads

21. 21
5.4 Section Properties
Depth of cross-section h = 393.6 mm
Width of cross-section b = 399 mm
Depth between fillets d = 290.2 mm
Web thickness tw = 22.6 mm
Flange thickness tf = 36.5 mm
Radius of root fillet r = 15.2 mm
Cross-sectional area A = 366 cm2
Second moment of area (y-y) Iy = 99900 cm4
Second moment of area (z-z) Iz = 38700 cm4
Radius of gyration, (z-z) iz = 10.3 cm
Warping constant Iw = 12.3 dm6
Torsion constant It = 1440 cm4
Elastic section modulus (y-y) Wel,y = 5070 cm3
Plastic section modulus (y-y) Wpl,y = 5810 cm3
Modulus of Elasticity E = 210000 N/mm2
5.5 Verification of load combination N1
N1:
4
3
𝐼𝐺 +
3
2
𝑄 𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑁𝑠𝑑 =
4
3
∗ 0.5( 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟) ∗ 1599 +
3
2
∗ 0.5( 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟)∗ 30000 ∗ 1.15
= 26941 kN
A = 2 * 36600 = 73200 mm2
I = (A*d2) + Iz = (73200 * 2 * 11002) + (387*106)
= 1.775 * 1011 mm4
i = √
𝐼
𝐴 𝑡𝑜𝑡
= 1101.2 mm
ʎ =
𝐿 𝑘
𝑖
=
50000
1101.2
= 45.4
𝐿 𝑚
𝐿0
=
2.0
2.2
= 0.91 (>0.9 and <1.7)
Therefore: ɗ = 1 +
50
ʎ
2 ∗
𝐴 𝑡𝑜𝑡
𝐴 𝑡𝑟.𝑚𝑖𝑛
= 1 +
50
45.42 ∗
4
1
= 1.097
Therefore, fictive slenderness: ʎ’ = ʎ * √ɗ = 45.4 * √1.097 = 47.556

22. 22
5.5.1 Verification of column member (troucou)
Condition: K1’ * Km * σ ≤ σe =
𝑓𝑦
1.10
=
275
1.10
= 250 N/mm2
Where:
σ =
26941∗103
4∗36600
= 184 N/mm2
𝜎𝑘’ =
𝜋2
𝐸
ʎ′2 =
𝜋2
∗210000
47.5562 = 919.12 N/mm2
μ’ =
𝜎 𝑘 ′
𝜎
=
919.12
184
= 4.99
K1’ =
𝜇′−1
𝜇′−1.3
=
4.99−1
4.99−1.3
= 1.08
i= 103 mm therefore ʎ =
2000
103
= 19.42
Therefore Km = 1.035
K1’ * Km * σ = 1.08 * 1.035 * 184 = 205.93 N/mm2
205.93 < 250 N/mm2
OK
5.5.2 Verification of whole tower
ʎ’ = 47.556
K’= 1.095
Condition: σ ≤
𝜎𝑒=𝜎 𝑦
𝑘′
=
275
1.10
∗
1
1.095
= 228.31 N/mm2
σ = 204.92 < 228.31 N/mm2
OK
Cross section is adequate

23. 23
6 ESTIMATES CALCULATED
The following crosssections of the main and the column beams for four different crane dimensions were
tested using the same method and load as in sections 4 and 5.
Table 6: Cross sections calculated for 4 different models and CMS cross sections
CMS 1 2 3 4
Load applied (t) 2000 6000 6000 6000 6000
Column height (m) 24.1 25 30 30 40
Beam span (m) 27.5 30 40 40 50
Distance btw LP*(m) 12.7 20 24 24 32
Steel grade of beam S355 S355 S355 S410 S355
Main Beam cross
section (mm)
h: 3300
b: 1150
d: 2750
tw: 25
tf: 50
h: 4100
b:1600
d: 3390
tw: 45
tf: 75
h: 5350
b:1900
d: 5190
tw: 60
tf: 80
h: 5350
b:1900
d: 5080
tw: 60
tf: 80
h: 6500
b:2000
d: 5190
tw: 70
tf: 80
Self-weight (t) 61 98.38 193.3 188.2 300
Lo (m) 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.5 2.2
Lm (m) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.0
Lk (m) 48.2 50 60 60 80
Steel grade of column 275 275 275 355 275
Column Beam cross
section
h: 288.54
b: 264.5
d: 193.67
tw: 19.177
tf: 31.75
r: not stated
W10X112 (US
specification)
h: 393.6
b: 399.0
d: 290.2
tw: 22.6
tf: 36.5
r: 15.2
UKC
356X406X287
h: 393.6
b: 399.0
d: 290.2
tw: 22.6
tf: 36.5
r: 15.2
UKC
356X406X287
h: 374.6
b: 374.7
d: 290.2
tw: 16.5
tf: 27
r: 15.2
UKC
356X368X202
h: 419
b: 407
d: 290.2
tw: 30.6
tf: 49.2
r: 15.2
UKC
356X406X393
*LP: loading points
Lo: distance between two column beams
Lm: height of bracing unit
Lk: effective length of column
Figure 15: beam cross section
Table 7: Column dimensions

24. 24
7 GENERAL COMMENTS
7.1.1 Main Beam
Four different cranes are presented in section 6. Because the cross section needed are so large, they are
not available commercially and so the dimensions used do not belong to a standard. As for the CMS
main beam, the beam will have to be manufactured especially for the task.
The first design has similar dimensions to the CMS gantry crane but has a smaller span from the
columns to the loading points. Despite the applied load having being tripled, the cross section of the
main beam only increases by 80cm in height and 45cm in depth. This suggests that the position of the
point load has a significant impact on the design and the span from the column to the load should be
reduced as much as possible to reduce the cross section of the beam.
The second and third designs have exactly the same dimensions and loads but were calculated
with a different steel grade to see the effect that this would have on the cross section of the main beam.
Using S410 instead of S355 allows us to reduce the cross section needed for the beam, however this
reduction is not outstanding. S410 is less common than S355 and would therefore be more expensive to
procure, one must therefore look into whether the benefits of using this grade of steel are sufficient to
outweigh the added cost.
The fourth case is an extreme case scenario,should the detectorhave an extremely large diameter.
While one can still theoretically design a beam with a cross section large enough for this case the
problem of its weight comesinto play: canstandard craneslift it into position? Furthermore, is it possible
to cast such a large beam?
7.1.2 Columns
The column cross sections needed are small enough that standard beams exist in such dimensions. For
the purpose of this study UKB standards are used and the “Tata steel blue book” values and dimensions
are used as reference.
As before,the first design is similar in dimensions to the CMS gantry crane. We can observe that
the cross-section of the columns is noticeably increased in this case. The dimensions being very similar
to those of the CMS crane, this is due to the increase it load.
The second design has the same cross section for the column as the first. The only difference
betweenthe two is the increase in height of the column; it must not have an enormous effecton the cross
section needed.
The third design has again been calculated with a higher steelgrade to see its effect on the size of
the cross section required. This, combined with a slight change in the column dimension allows us to
noticeably reduce the cross section of the column needed. As S355 I not that uncommon and 16 of these
beams will be needed, it may be interesting to consider this option for the columns.
Case four still uses standardised beams however Tata steel does not list many larger cross
sections. Should the section requirements increase by much, one could use a higher grade of steel to

25. 25
reduce this requirement or would have to manufacture a beam specifically for the task. This would be
very impractical as 16 of them would be needed.
7.1.3 Further design considerations
It seems that the cross sections of the beam and the columns will not be the limiting factor in this
endeavour, however the design of the foundations need to be looked into as they will likely pose a
greater issue.
Indeed, they cannot be too close to the shaft as they will interact with it, compromising the
stability of both structures. However,having them further away from the shaft also implies a larger span
for the beam and therefore an increased moment generated by the same load. This will result in a larger
cross section being necessary for both the main beam and the towers.
The concrete plug on which the detector will rest is not assumed to be a limiting factor as high
strength concrete is often used in high-rise buildings, capable of sustaining the large loads generated,
and canbe made to sustain up to 130N/mm2
(PCA,2016). The issue may lie in the rails and the hydraulic
pumps used to move the concrete back and forth.
Another aspect of the design of the beam cross section that will require looking into is the design
of the stiffeners necessary in a class 3 cross-section.
One could also consider using higher grades of steelthan the S355 used in the CMS gantry crane,
as suggested by trial 3 above, as this reduces the dimensions of the cross section needed. These higher
grades of steel are more expensive however, and a cost analysis way want to be conducted.
8 POSSIBLE CONTRACTORS
8.1 VSL
8.1.1 Company information
VSL designed and built the 2000 tonne capacity crane for the CMS. It has headquarters in St. Légier,
Switzerland and provides technical consultancy and support from project planning to complete final
design, construction engineering and on-site activities (Vsl-heavy-lifting.com, 2016).
8.1.2 Contact information

26. 26
VSL Headquarter
VSL International Ltd.
Saegestrasse 76 - CH-3098 Köniz - Switzerland
Phone: 41 58 456 30 00
Fax: 41 58 456 30 55
Email: info@vsl.com
8.1.3 Resources
VSL’s online catalogue provides information as to the capacity of the strand-jacks that they produce:
these are of 10 to 580 tonnes with piston strokes between 160 and 550 mm (Vsl-heavy-lifting.com,
2016).
Table 8: VSL strand-jacker specifications (Vsl-heavy-lifting.com, 2016)
Maximum capacity strand-jacker on the VSL online catalogue is: 572.9 tonnes
4* 573 = 2292 tonnes (insufficient)
8* 573 = 4584 tonnes (insufficient)
A higher capacity strand-jacker than the ones available on the online catalogue will have to be
procured.
8.2 Dorman Long Technology (DL)

27. 27
8.2.1 Company information
DL is specialised in the erecting of long span suspension and cable stayed bridges, and in engineering
specialist modular construction operations such as heavy lifting, lowering and horizontal skidding
operations (Dormanlongtechnology.com, 2016). With headquarters in Northamptonshire, UK, it
provides consultancy services under an ISO 9001:2008 accredited quality management system and
covered professional indemnity insurance (Dormanlongtechnology.com, 2016). Site support is also
provided: site technicians are usually initially incorporated in a client’s team to provide assistance and
official training of the client’s staff certifies them to competently operate the equipment
(Dormanlongtechnology.com, 2016).
8.2.2 Contact information
For general enquiries please contact enquiries@dormanlong.com
UKHead Office:
The Charles Parker Building, Midland Road, Higham Ferrers,Northamptonshire, NN10 8DN, United
Kingdom
Tel. +44 (0)1933 319133
Contact: Mr David Dyer. david.dyer@dormanlong.com
8.2.3 Resources
DLT designs and manufactures Strand-jacks with capacities from 15 to 1672 tonnes
(Dormanlongtechnology.com, 2016)

28. 28
Figure 16: DL-S1672 type strand-jacker (Strand jack systems; Strand jacks, power packs and control systems,
2016)

29. 29
9 CONCLUSION
Based on the calculations undertaken in this study it seems that this project would be feasible.
The beamand the columns crosssection are unlikely to be the limiting factor,howeverthe column
foundations need to be looked into as they will likely pose a greater issue.
The concrete plug is not assumedto be a limiting factorhoweverthe rails and the hydraulic pumps
used to move the concrete back and forth may want to be looked into.
Another aspect of the design of the beam cross section that will require looking into is the design
of the stiffeners necessary in a class 3 cross-section and the use of higher grades of steel.
As for what concerns the contractor who undertakes the endeavour: VSL is advantageous in that
it is a locally basedcompany that has worked on a similar project for CERNbefore and would undertake
the design and construction of the crane. However it does not readily available strand-jackers of a large
enough capacity. Such a strand-jackers would have to be ordered or constructed. DL does manufacture
such strand jackers and would install them and train workers to use them.

30. 30
10 WORKS CITED
Desirelli, A. and Ferreira, L. (2006). CMS Lifting Gantry: Gantry Assessment
Dormanlongtechnology.com. (2016). DLT Strand Jacks 15 to 1672 tonnes capacity per jack.
[online] Available at: http://dormanlongtechnology.com/en/Products/strand_jacks.htm
[Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].
Dormanlongtechnology.com. (2016). Dorman Long Technology home page. [online]
Available at: http://dormanlongtechnology.com/ [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].
Vsl-heavy-lifting.com. (2016). Equipment | VSL | Heavy Lifting. [online] Available at:
http://vsl-heavy-lifting.com/services/equipment.php [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016
Mentink, M. and ten Kate, H. (2016). Update on Detector magnets Design for FCC-hh.
Osborne, J. (2006). CMS Gantry for Detector Lowering.
PCA, A. (2016). High-Strength Concrete. [online] Cement.org. Available at:
http://www.cement.org/cement-concrete-basics/products/high-strength-concrete [Accessed 23
Aug. 2016].
Strand jack systems; Strand jacks, power packs and control systems. (2016). 1st ed. [ebook]
Available at: http://dormanlongtechnology.com/en/Products/strand_jacks.htm [Accessed 15
Aug. 2016].
VSL, (2006). Lifting Gantry Design Report. 296 2143 CERN CMS Lowering.
VSL, (2006). Method Statement for Dummy Load test
VSL, (2006). 2000t Lifting Gantry Designation of Main Parts. 296 2143 Cern CMS
Lowering.